Back

Using opioid analgesia for chronic pain in adults aged 85+: a qualitative study

Faux-Nightingale, A.; Woodcock, C.; Walker, C.; Smith, H. E.; Welsh, V. K.

2026-06-08 geriatric medicine
10.64898/2026.06.08.26354706 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Chronic pain is common in adults aged 85 years and older (85+) and is associated with detrimental outcomes. Chronic pain guidelines advise first line management with non-pharmacological measures; paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the preferred analgesics. Challenges in accessing non-pharmacological therapies for adults aged 85+, and the presence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy, mean that opioid medication is often prescribed for chronic pain despite the potential for opioid-related adverse effects and guidance identifying long-term opioids for chronic pain as a potentially inappropriate prescription. Aim This study aims to explore patient, caregiver, and healthcare professional perspectives on the prescription of opioid medications for pain management for chronic pain in adults aged 85+ to support development of resources for optimising opioid prescribing. Design and Setting In this qualitative study, participants were recruited through primary care, in the community or in care home settings. Method 36 semi-structured interviews were conducted with care home residents and community dwellers aged 85+ (n=12), caregivers (informal and care home staff) (n=12), and healthcare professionals (n=12). Interviews were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results Four themes were developed: contextual complexity, satellite influences, balancing act, and pragmatic prescribing. Using opioids in adults aged 85+ is a balancing act to support patients best possible quality of life within their unique circumstances whilst using the pain management tools available. Conclusion Opioids continue to have an important role in pain management in adults aged 85+ largely due to paucity of alternatives and the drive to support quality of life.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 5%
23.3%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 1%
12.8%
3
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.4%
4
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMC Geriatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
6
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
7
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
8
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
9
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
10
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
11
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
12
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
13
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
14
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.8%
15
The Journal of Pain
26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
16
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
18
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
19
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
20
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
22
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
23
Age and Ageing
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
24
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
26
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
27
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%